This isn’t the first time they’ve gotten the Constitution wrong, either – I remember last year when they mistakenly confused the right to speak with the mythical “right” to be heard.
Charlie Foxtrot speculates on a possible NYT response to the criticism:
“Constitution, Declaration of Independence…whatever. You are taking my words out of context, and missing the bigger point….blah, blah,blah.”
On a more serious note, Stephen Spruiell makes a good point about another point the NYT attempted to make in the op/ed:
Also worth noting is the editorial board’s use of the phrase, “Second Amendment idolatry.” It’s been said before, but it bears repeating: Can you imagine the Times using this phrase with respect to any other constitutional amendment? Should we start describing its desire to remain free from government censorship as First Amendment idolatry? Support a women’s right to vote? Nineteenth Amendment idolater! Personally, I’d like to see a little less Sixteenth Amendment idolatry from the Times editorial board, but that’s just me.